Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

I know this probably falls under the category "hopeless optimism" and "potentially life-extinguishing experiment run wild" but does anyone know what's happening on the bioengineering front in terms of climate change?

Has genetic science advanced or will it have time to advance to the point where we can bioengineer bacteria, algae or mycelium to more efficiently carbon capture on a huge scale through normal biological processes? Replace ocean algae with modified, more robust algae that need higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and that sequesters more of it? Using modified mycelium to break down and permanently capture carbon from all sorts of organic decomp (including possibly tundra decomp as the world grows warmer)? How about methane clathrate-absorbing bacteria?

I don't know anything about this, but I keep reading about how advanced we're getting with biotech.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:09

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Just throw money at Elon Musk and his Mars ambitions. Forget about the Earth and just rebuild from scratch over there.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 10:23

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

We have x years to reduce emissions until we are at the point where catastrophic global climate change will be certain.

can we agree on the x value in this thread?

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:19

Placid Marmot: Apr 28, 2013

a whole buncha crows posted:

We have x years to reduce emissions until we are at the point where catastrophic global climate change will be certain.

can we agree on the x value in this thread?

I think we can all agree that the answer is no.

We ought to also agree that we need to do all of the following:
Reduce emissions, sequester CO2, mitigate negative effects, and adapt to new conditions, whatever the value of X.

Edit: This assumes that we ignore the opinions of people who don't think we should reduce emissions, because such people should not have their opinions humored.

Placid Marmot fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Oct 18, 2016

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:28

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

a whole buncha crows posted:

We have x years to reduce emissions until we are at the point where catastrophic global climate change will be certain.

can we agree on the x value in this thread?

-26

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:39

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

a whole buncha crows posted:

We have x years to reduce emissions until we are at the point where catastrophic global climate change will be certain.

can we agree on the x value in this thread?

Probably, if you can rigorously define 'catastrophic'. Some level of catastrophe is already certain, but new and exciting levels of even greater catastrophe are still available.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:49

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

This depopulating and agrarian society stuff sure is interesting even if it does raise way more questions than it answers. Questions like: how do we keep science and medicine going when those require robust industry? Or any of the ones I brought up earlier, none of which were answered except with a vague baby market idea or something. How about an answer to the question "will these ideas even actually work?" Seems like a lot of sacrifices to be made if it turns out neither idea ACTUALLY works. I think that is the question most people and, indeed, governments ask.

So instead of coming up with solutions societies and governments will actually accept, like the most recent agreements, that help but aren't magic bullets, you guys are in a position where you never have to be wrong because no one will ever use your ideas. No one will even consider using them until its way too late anyway. See, but we need solutions that are not predicated on impossible premises like instant global unity to do what this guy on the internet says. We need ones people and governments will actually agree on. Your ideas are as impossible as colonizing Mars or hoping miracle technology saves us, just impossible in a different way. That is, no one will listen to you.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:50

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

Placid Marmot posted:

I think we can all agree that the answer is no.

We ought to also agree that we need to do all of the following:
Reduce emissions, sequester CO2, mitigate negative effects, and adapt to new conditions, whatever the value of X.

Edit: This assumes that we ignore the opinions of people who don't think we should reduce emissions, because such people should not have their opinions humored.

I do agree with this tho

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:58

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

The sad thing is that these governmental agreements that you mention in passing are magic bullets, except even more convoluted.

Look at the HFC one that Trabisniskof is trying to persuade us is effective - no meaningful cuts imposed on the BRIC countries till 2045. Forecasted impact is the avoidance of a +0.1C increase. No solution for getting India or China to reduce emissions beyond reducing AC uptake. No enforcement mechanism although he keeps on saying "it's binding".

We need 60 of these magic bullets to work in perfect sync.

I'd rather we put money on SpaceX and Uber as emissions mitigation strategies than throwing money at diplomats spending hundreds of millions of dollars on fake treaties.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 11:58

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

TACD posted:

Probably, if you can rigorously define 'catastrophic'. Some level of catastrophe is already certain, but new and exciting levels of even greater catastrophe are still available.

Catastrophic could be defined as the point that nothing we do will alter the future climate, or maybe that's armageddon!

It seems pretty certain that if we reach 2c without having already eliminated at least 60% of emissions we will spiral into some unknowable feedback loop of terror.

If we do as much as possible re;

Placid Marmot posted:

We ought to also agree that we need to do all of the following:
Reduce emissions, sequester CO2, mitigate negative effects, and adapt to new conditions, whatever the value of X.

All of which is absolutely necessary, however back to 'x', if we manage to do this in ten years (curb 60-70% emissions) do we think we can reach a point where we no longer have to fear a runaway scenario? What about 20 years?

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:30

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

Uranium Phoenix posted:

I know this is from a while back in the conversation, but I think it has an important message.

People do what other people around them do. If people see a culture around them of personal responsibility, environmental awareness, and a dedication to doing their part to solve this crisis, they will join into that culture to fit in. If that becomes the overwhelming norm, it will be much easier to demand (or force) action from politicians.

The other thing I think people keep missing is this: Yes, we are probably locked in to a certain amount of temperature rise. There's basically no way we go under 2 degrees C. However, it can always get worse. There is no point where giving up is a good choice, because the longer we take to solve this problem, the worse it gets. The question is not "how do we stop climate change" but "how do we minimize the damage of climate change and prevent it from getting worse." As always, then, the most productive conversation is one on specific actions--how do we build a culture and movement that will begin to address the problem?
...
So for example, another poster was involved in the fossil fuel divestment campaign at a local college. It scared the heck out of some people who weren't used to public scrutiny and got some stuff done. Is climate change over? Heck no. But it got some like-minded people working together to achieve a small but attainable goal that might lead to larger changes or another successful action in the future. That is how poo poo gets done. Is there a divestment campaign at your college? Maybe! If there isn't, you could start one. The one at the college I went to started with like 6 people who then reached out to my group, and started. Did it work? Nope! But it did get a bunch of activists to link up and work with each other on other issues as well, and that did achieve some small goals.

It won't happen tomorrow. Yes, it's a big problem, no poo poo. But focus on the concrete, small actions that you personally can take. If enough people do that, it can make a difference. I think this is a point most people broadly agree on; most of the heated arguments seem to focus more on the abstract and big picture, which it is much easier to find contradictory opinions on because of how much uncertainty surrounds the future.

Nailed it again.

Echoes a recent Vox article on what addressing the climate crisis actually looks like:

quote:

There will never be one big turning point on climate policy � just lots of stutter steps

A month ago, I was chatting with journalist John Fleck about his (terrific) new book on water policy in the American West, and he mentioned something that seemed deeply relevant to climate policy.

When the Western states that rely on the Colorado River first realized they were facing huge water shortages in the future, they didn�t all quickly agree on a deal that solved the entire problem at once. That was way too difficult to coordinate. So, instead, they started out by collaborating on much smaller issues, chipping away at this or that aspect of water policy, building trust over time. That enabled them to slowly work toward a bigger agreement on how best to divvy up and conserve the river�s scarce water.

�At each step, the states built this connective tissue, the institutional plumbing that allowed everyone to find ways of moving forward,� Fleck told me. �That was one of the hardest challenges of writing the book � because there�s not a clear, crisp thing you can point to that solved the problem. It�s a never-ending and ongoing process.� (Elinor Ostrom is the go-to scholar on how this collaborative process works.)

If we�re going to solve global warming, it will probably look like that. There will never be one dramatic moment you can point to and say, �Aha! There�s the turning point.� Instead, countries will plug away at small issues, like HFCs, or aviation, or when to hold the next UN Paris meeting, and build momentum over time.

Will that be enough? I honestly don�t know. As I�ve written before, I�m deeply skeptical that countries can achieve their goal of keeping global warming below 2�C. The math is too brutal, the momentum too sluggish. But that doesn�t mean it�s time to give up. Even keeping global warming at 2.5�C or 3�C is vastly preferable to 4�C or 5�C. Every additional degree means more coastal area lost to the sea, more crop failures, more deadly heat waves, more human misery. There�s always reason to push harder.

I'd add that this is still deeply anthropogenic (preserving as much of the world as we can for the rest of life on this planet is also a worthy motivation) but this sounds like a reasonable frame.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 12:59

Cranappleberry: Jan 27, 2009

The conflict in this thread is between people who want to solve the problem by extreme but unlikely scenarios with no popular or government support and people who recognize the only thing that is politically viable right now is to buy time and hope enough people and money can be organized from the local level on up to influence politicians for greener laws and better international agreements.

The politicization of global warming in the US and nations industrializing (and nations wanting to continue their industry) have hamstrung the movement at home and abroad. So even though nuclear power is viable now (but is considered bad because of the word "nuclear") and renewables might be some day, neither is being implemented to stop CO2 production. Time is ticking away

# ? Oct 18, 2016 13:10

AceOfFlames: Oct 9, 2012

Again, with all that's being discussed, why is self euthanasia considered such a bad thing? My happiness is intrinsically bound to industrial civilization:all my interests are technological in nature and I would rather hang myself than live in some village with nothing to discuss with people other than the horrific small talk people today already do. Not to mention that to survive chaotic scenarios you need a support network, which I do not have. If I want to leave this place, people should be happy for me, not sad.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 13:15

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

BattleMoose coming into the thread arguing for optimism, proposing a wild target as a real possibility and reason to have hope, and then being unable to even explain how it would result in a situation that wasnt hosed up or really do anything at all but by us more time before the inevitable collapse is probablu the single most depressing and demoralizing thing I have read in this thread of depressing and demoralizing things.

So thanks dude, you have officially convinced me there is not point to any of these and as individuals we shouldnt do anything except make sure we move to somewhere that can weather the changes and make preperationa to mazimize our childrens chance of survival in a hostile world, and everyone else can get hosed.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 13:15

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

AceOfFlames posted:

Again, with all that's being discussed, why is self euthanasia considered such a bad thing? My happiness is intrinsically bound to industrial civilization:all my interests are technological in nature and I would rather hang myself than live in some village with nothing to discuss with people other than the horrific small talk people today already do. Not to mention that to survive chaotic scenarios you need a support network, which I do not have. If I want to leave this place, people should be happy for me, not sad.

Definitely not a bad thing if it's an informed decision.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 13:17

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

quote:

I�m deeply skeptical that countries can achieve their goal of keeping global warming below 2�C. The math is too brutal, the momentum too sluggish. But that doesn�t mean it�s time to give up. Even keeping global warming at 2.5�C or 3�C is vastly preferable to 4�C or 5�C. Every additional degree means more coastal area lost to the sea, more crop failures, more deadly heat waves, more human misery. There�s always reason to push harder.

3 c is a nightmare scenario

# ? Oct 18, 2016 13:22

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Is there a realistic path to anything under 5c?

Like, battlemoose has clearly given up, but assuming we do manage to switch power gen over to clean energies completely the way he says, does that even result in less than infinite warming with remaining emissions, and if it does what value does it settle at?

# ? Oct 18, 2016 13:54

Wanderer: Nov 5, 2006; our every move is the new tradition

Hey, off the topic of voluntary euthanasia, here's some pretty good news:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/

quote:

This process has several advantages when compared to other methods of converting CO2 into fuel. The reaction uses common materials like copper and carbon, and it converts the CO2 into ethanol, which is already widely used as a fuel.

Perhaps most importantly, it works at room temperature, which means that it can be started and stopped easily and with little energy cost. This means that this conversion process could be used as temporary energy storage during a lull in renewable energy generation, smoothing out fluctuations in a renewable energy grid.

tl;dr: dudes figured out how to turn atmospheric CO2 into ethanol using nanotechnology. Early days yet, but the sky's the limit as far as applications go.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 14:20

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

You're a loving idiot if you honestly believe your kids will be living in bunkers and still choose to have them.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 14:26

AceOfFlames: Oct 9, 2012

call to action posted:

You're a loving idiot if you honestly believe your kids will be living in bunkers and still choose to have them.

Most people's reasons to have children are selfish. They wantpeople who canove them unconditionally despite being terrible to them, or serfs to take care of them in their old age. Hell, my own mother has tried to unload her anxieties regarding other family members on me and when I suggested therapy she shot back "then what are children FOR?"

# ? Oct 18, 2016 14:32

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

call to action posted:

You're a loving idiot if you honestly believe your kids will be living in bunkers and still choose to have them.

Or, you know, someone with a different value set than you, whatever yours is that leads you to that conclusion.

Of which selfishness is but one of many, although its certainly not mine.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 14:37

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

GlyphGryph posted:

Like, battlemoose has clearly given up,

I really haven't. Not sure where communication got so bungled but yeah. I am deeply pessimistic but I also have very little clue as to what this world is going to look like in 2100. And the more we do now, the less bad it will be. That message will be the same for a very long time still.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 14:54

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Uranium Phoenix posted:

... a good post ...

It won't happen tomorrow. Yes, it's a big problem, no poo poo. But focus on the concrete, small actions that you personally can take. If enough people do that, it can make a difference. I think this is a point most people broadly agree on; most of the heated arguments seem to focus more on the abstract and big picture, which it is much easier to find contradictory opinions on because of how much uncertainty surrounds the future.

Edit: I typed this up before catching up on the last bunch of posts. I think people with similar ideas are talking past each other again.

Focusing on concrete action is definitely more productive than the depressive whining on display itt. However I think people should in fact focus on the big picture, as while local environmental initiatives are important on their own merits climate change is a uniquely global problem.

To contribute, one of the more recent victories for climate change mitigation was the announcement of a Canadian national carbon tax. It's worth examining the policy and how it came about. It follows the example of British Columbia (a Canadian province), which introduced a provincial carbon tax in 2008 following an election. There was already significant public support for climate change action in BC, and during the 2008 election the centrist Liberal party realized they could steal votes from the nominally more progressive New Democrat Party by attacking them from the left on this issue. It worked, in part because the carbon tax was better than the NDP's cap and trade proposal and in part because the BC NDP was/is/always will be terrible (guess who's a former member!). Note that fossil fuel use dropped ~16% in BC since passing the tax, while the rest of Canada usage increased ~3% over the same time period.

The recent Canadian national carbon tax followed a similar pattern. While several Canadian provinces were considering various carbon pricing plans, the federal Liberal government made a surprise announcement of a mandatory national tax. The same political logic applies, in that they can steal progressive voters away from the NDP by backing a policy that's already moderately popular. The actual proposed carbon prices are very low, as the Liberal party's goal is to maintain political power and not so much to actually fight climate change.

The point is that national carbon pricing is achievable, but it requires a strong enough progressive political faction that centrists feel threatened and try to co-opt some of their positions. If people in this thread are serious about climate change mitigation, the most productive action is to join the most progressive national political party and help make them scary enough that centrists try to steal their supporters. In Canada this means joining the NDP (as depressing as they are right now), in the US I guess it means primarying centrist Democrats and somehow reversing Republican state level domination. Bernie Sander's vanity primary challenge was a pretty good example of this tactic. My main point is that people have to seriously engage in the depressing mess that is state and national level politics to make any real difference wrt climate change, retreating into local initiatives is of limited help.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 14:59

Banana Man: Oct 2, 2015; mm time 2 gargle piss and shit

shrike82 posted:

Just throw money at Elon Musk and his Mars ambitions. Forget about the Earth and just rebuild from scratch over there.

Even a post apocalyptic jellyfish infested hell earth would be cheaper and easier to survive on than mars

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:00

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

Here's a really fantastic explainer out today on the story behind the Washington State carbon tax proposal that is going to be on the ballot next month.

Some of the biggest climate groups in the state are actively advocating against the measure, which enacts a carbon tax that peaks at $100 per ton (which is legitimately substantial) that is offset by reducing the state sales tax by 1%, replacing the state corporate tax, and increasing state tax credits for low-income families.

It's a really compelling story about the coming fracture in climate activism: the "green party" approach that combines climate mitigation with social justice, and the "market-based" approach that focuses on structuring incentives in extremely targeted ways.

quote:

Here�s the situation. There�s a carbon tax on the ballot in Washington this November, meant not just to put the state on the path to its climate targets but to serve as an example to other states.

The measure, called Initiative 732, isn�t just any carbon tax, either. It�s a big one. It would be the first carbon tax in the US, the biggest in North America, and one of the most ambitious in the world.

And yet the left opposes it. The Democratic Party, community-of-color groups, organized labor, big liberal donors, and even most big environmental groups have come out against it.

Why on Earth would the left oppose the first and biggest carbon tax in the country? How has the climate community in Washington ended up in what one participant calls a "train wreck"? (Others have described it in more, er, colorful terms.)

That turns out to be a complex and ill-fated story, revealing divisions among climate hawks � over who pays, who benefits, and who decides � that will not long stay confined to the West Coast. The future of climate politics is playing out in Washington state, and it is not pretty.

...

The only way to amass the political power to create change on the scale necessary, they concluded, would be to build a broad, diverse, and enduring political coalition. "We have to totally remake the climate movement," says Gregg Small of the nonprofit group Climate Solutions. "That's the fundamental lesson that we learned."

Washington greens were not alone in drawing that conclusion, of course � it is reflected in the national climate movement as well, which has focused in recent years on allying with local and indigenous groups to fight coal plants and fossil fuel pipelines. Climate activism, the thinking goes, can only succeed as a kind of adjunct to more proximate activism focused on more immediate concerns. A broad coalition is the only way forward.

So coalition building is what Washington environmentalists set out to do. They reached out to the three other constituencies they felt would be key: communities of color, labor unions, and climate-friendly businesses.

That began what would become a years-long series of discussions, exploring the possibilities for collaboration and talking through what kind of policy they could all get behind. "We've spent a whole lot of time together," says Becky Kelley, president of the Washington Environmental Council, "coming to understand, at a pretty deep level, each other's interests." It was, by all accounts, an intense, at times difficult, but meaningful process for those involved.

The greens were lucky in their partners. Jeff Johnson, the president of the Washington State Labor Council (WSLC), had been working to get labor in the state "on the right side of history" on climate change, as he puts it. The work, which he compares to "trying to steer an ocean liner," culminated in a comprehensive 2015 WSLC resolution on climate and jobs. Labor in Washington state is, rare among state-level labor communities, an active and willing partner in climate discussions.

And Washington�s communities of color have taken on climate change as a core concern. A collection of more than 60 low-income, community-of-color, indigenous, and social justice groups formed an umbrella climate justice organization, Front and Centered, in 2014, behind a set of "principles for climate justice." They were also eager to participate in a coalition.

Public health and business groups joined the discussions as well. This broad informal network eventually became, in January 2015, a formal organization: the Alliance for Clean Jobs and Energy. (It now has six core groups, a steering committee representing a dozen more, and many dozens of groups that have signed on to support.)

"I have never been in rooms like the alliance, in terms of the types of people who sit together," says Aiko Schaefer of Front and Centered, who has been working on poverty and social justice campaigns in the state for years. "I've never sat down with business in a collaborative way like that, or environmental organizations. It is a table I've never seen."

The theory of change informing the alliance strategy is clear: Unite the left�s disparate constituencies behind climate action and overwhelm resistance from conservatives and fossil fuel interests. California�s climate successes are the model. (California�s landmark climate bill AB32 passed in 2006 with one Republican vote in the state House and none in the Senate; this year, its even more ambitious successor, SB32, passed the exact same way.)

...

Yoram Bauman took away a different set of lessons from the failures of 2009-'10.

...

He saw that the only action likely to happen was at the state level, through the ballot, and that other states badly needed a proven template for what they could do on climate. After all, Washington�s own emissions are not particularly significant in the grand scheme of things. (They are a fifth of California�s.)

State policy is significant, Bauman reasoned, primarily insofar as it is replicable elsewhere.

And here is where he parted with the alliance. From his perspective, if Washington were to have a model policy that could be adopted by other states � including states less liberal than Washington, which includes most US states � then it could not, almost by definition, move forward only by uniting the left. The left simply isn�t powerful enough to secure victory on its own in most states.

Rather than attempting to please every left constituency, Bauman believes, climate policy should sidestep perennial battles over, say, the size of government. It should surgically target climate change and attempt nothing else. That way, everyone who cares about climate change, including many conservatives, can get behind the same policy, without getting caught up in partisan gridlock.

The way to do that, Bauman concluded, is with a revenue-neutral tax swap. It cuts carbon without growing the size of government, so there�s no way for conservatives to cast it as tax-and-spend liberalism.

That was the theory of change informing CarbonWA, the group Bauman founded: Craft a policy that can unite people who care about climate change, from the left and the right. Bipartisanship is the only route forward.

The model for Bauman was British Columbia, where a revenue-neutral carbon tax passed in 2008. It rose to $30 a ton in 2012, but has been frozen there by the provincial government. Its effectiveness is hotly debated, but � key for Bauman�s purposes � it remains fairly popular across the political spectrum.

Tellingly, there were no examples of US climate bipartisanship for Bauman to draw from.
...

It continues from there. You owe it to yourself to read every word.

It has not escaped my notice that this is almost exactly the tension between a "green" climate-justice left and the globalist financial elite that I described earlier in this thread.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:01

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

BattleMoose posted:

I really haven't. Not sure where communication got so bungled but yeah. I am deeply pessimistic but I also have very little clue as to what this world is going to look like in 2100. And the more we do now, the less bad it will be. That message will be the same for a very long time still.

Aren't you effectively advocating "We can't even make things less bad, but maybe we can buy enough time for magical miracles?" at this point? I mean, I spotted you an overnight 65% reduction in emissions and you still couldn't seem to see a way that would help the situation. If you're down to praying for magic to happen... I mean, I'm not sure what to call that if not giving up.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:05

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Reminder how anytime anyone brings up carbon credits, point at Australia, Canada, and Germany giving up on their schemes not even 10 years from initiation.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:16

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Forever_Peace posted:

It continues from there. You owe it to yourself to read every word.

It has not escaped my notice that this is almost exactly the tension between a "green" climate-justice left and the globalist financial elite that I described earlier in this thread.

A $100/ton carbon tax (minimum, not peak) that involved the money being explicitly earmarked for carbon sequestration research and technologies, or towards emissions mitigration in general, that might have been good. But a $100/ton carbon tax that is actually just a back-doored way to cut taxes so the money from the carbon tax is already spent before it's collected? That's seriously the best they can do? And hahah at the idea of bipartisanship. So the left is completely right about the way in which this proposal sucks.

But it's still better than the "leftist" solution of just failing over and over again because they refuse to prioritize meaningful progress, though, I'll give him that. And it's morbidly appropriate that the measure and its inevitably failure are going to exist largely because the left coalition dragged its feet and refused to get serious about things until it was too late, and then decided to just not do anything at all because it would have been too hard. Like a metaphor for climate change on the whole.

Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good...

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:29

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

GlyphGryph posted:

Aren't you effectively advocating "We can't even make things less bad, but maybe we can buy enough time for magical miracles?" at this point?

In a word, no. As I have said in my past few posts, there has been a huge miscommunication between us, I have no idea what it is exactly or how to address it.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:43

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

BattleMoose posted:

In a word, no. As I have said in my past few posts, there has been a huge miscommunication between us, I have no idea what it is exactly or how to address it.

I guess there must be, because if that's not what you've been saying I've got no idea what you have actually been saying, sorry.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:46

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

GlyphGryph posted:

I guess there must be, because if that's not what you've been saying I've got no idea what you have actually been saying, sorry.

We had this forumsoftware guy completely dominating the thread for the past while, insisting that there is zero hope, we are all doomed and we have already triggered unstoppable feedback loops. Most of my time was spent contradicting every wrong claim he was making.

That fusion post caused so much confusion I just can't even. The points I was trying to make were:
1. There is actually a lot that we can technically do to hugely reduce our GHG emissions but we don't/can't because of "nuclear"
2. Decarbonising our economy becomes much easier if/when fusion technology becomes of age. This could be within a few decades.

We are committed at this point to unpleasant climate disruptions. That being said there is still time and plenty that can still be done to make it, to prevent it from becoming much worse. I am deeply pessimistic but we aren't out of time (probably and in my opinion).

# ? Oct 18, 2016 15:57

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

I think the title should be just how hosed will we be and how soon...that's basically the debate now

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:00

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

BattleMoose posted:

We had this forumsoftware guy completely dominating the thread for the past while, insisting that there is zero hope, we are all doomed and we have already triggered unstoppable feedback loops. Most of my time was spent contradicting every wrong claim he was making.

That fusion post caused so much confusion I just can't even. The points I was trying to make were:
1. There is actually a lot that we can technically do to hugely reduce our GHG emissions but we don't/can't because of "nuclear"
2. Decarbonising our economy becomes much easier if/when fusion technology becomes of age. This could be within a few decades.

We are committed at this point to unpleasant climate disruptions. That being said there is still time and plenty that can still be done to make it, to prevent it from becoming much worse. I am deeply pessimistic but we aren't out of time (probably and in my opinion).

Okay, so let's say we assume forumsoftware is wrong about the feedback loops, and the points you were trying to make our true and we can successfully obtain fusion or switch to nuclear or whatever.

Can you explain how that leads to a more hopeful and less worse outcome, which seems to be the primary goal of your argument?

Because that's the part where I seem to lose you. It seems to amount to "we can do this! and this! and that will help things get worse slow enough we might come up with something better!" and I'm not even sure I disagree with that as the most realistic path to follow, but since it seems that's not what you're actually advocating (you explicitly said it's not, right?), but then I read what you're writing there it still seems like what you're actually saying?

GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 18, 2016

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:03

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

GlyphGryph posted:

Can you explain how that leads to a more hopeful and less worse outcome? Or does it just buy us more time for a currently unknown potential strategy to arrive that leads to a more hopeful and less worse outcome?

Just in the very basic terms in that less GHG means less warming and less climate disruptions. Inevitably that means we will achieve a particular temperature rise later and that would buy us more time. That's less bad, right? There isn't much detail to include because there is just so much we don't know. The IPCC reports might be useful to you, they discuss the potential outcomes for different warming scenarios and are much better placed to explain that than I ever could. The one's with less warming look much more attractive.

quote:

Because that's the part where I seem to lose you. It seems to amount to "we can do this! and this! and that will help things get worse slow enough we might come up with something better!" and I'm not even sure I disagree with that as the most realistic path to follow, but since it seems that's not what you're actually advocating (you explicitly said it's not, right?), but then I read what you're writing there it still seems like what you're actually saying?

I guess so. I just don't regard this as giving up. And we absolutely can make things less bad. Warming slower is always going to be much better than warming quicker. Gives us time to adapt and engineer all the solutions that we might need for whatever the climate might throw at us and do all the things that we might need to do.

BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Oct 18, 2016

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:09

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

Damnit BattleMoose, you keep breaking my "Jerks Detected!" combo chains. I would've gotten to six at that one! I'll never get to 10 at this rate. Sheesh, have some consideration will ya.

In other news, here are some ocean scientists reacting in horror to that viral article about how the Great Barrier Reef is dead.

quote:

�I tend to be pretty measured in my responses to pieces like this,� said Stephanie Wear, senior scientist at the Nature Conservancy. �But this article has gotten me pretty worked up, and I am certain I am not alone just by reading my social media feeds today.�

She continued: �What we are facing right now is something akin to a recession � a coral reef recession. The key now is for us to identify the best ways to manage through this recession while the global community comes together to make good on the Paris [climate] agreements. Doing this will lead coral reefs out of recession and give them and the half-billion people that depend on them a fighting chance.�

In fact, Australia continues to make progress on efforts to protect and improve the health of the reef, as Science reported last month. Much remains to be done � above all, addressing the sources of pollution that cause global warming and coral bleaching.

�The danger of this story is that many folks won�t realize it is satire and will feel it is too late for coral reefs,� says Mark Eakin, the lead coordinator of NOAA Coral Reef Watch. �As depressing as the news has been for much of the last two years, I still have hope that we can save many of the world�s coral reefs.�

...

Terry Hughes, the Australian researcher whose surveys of the damaged reef this summer led to impassioned pleas to help protect it, put it bluntly: �You don�t write the obituary of a loved one when they are diagnosed with a serious illness � you help them fight for their life.�

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:14

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

30% of the Reef died this year. Better arrange for a visit there before it's gone.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:20

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

Forever_Peace posted:

Damnit BattleMoose, you keep breaking my "Jerks Detected!" combo chains. I would've gotten to six at that one! I'll never get to 10 at this rate. Sheesh, have some consideration will ya.

I literally have no idea what you are on about. Despite how much time I have spent on internet forums, I am really not very good at it, I think it shows.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:23

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

BattleMoose posted:

I literally have no idea what you are on about. Despite how much time I have spent on internet forums, I am really not very good at it, I think it shows.

He's saying he's added the majority of the people in this thread, myself included, to his "ignore list" in his forum settings, when means our posts are blocked out/censored and simply display the words "jerk detected", so that he can avoid feeling compelled to read them and respond. He was basically informing you that you are one of the few people he has not added to his ignore list, and also bragging about how many people he has put on ignore? I'm not 100% sure on the motivations, but that's an explanation of the technical details at least!

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:39

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

BattleMoose posted:

I literally have no idea what you are on about. Despite how much time I have spent on internet forums, I am really not very good at it, I think it shows.

Its ok just do what i do and ignore whatever personal stuff people throw into posts.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 10:09

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

BattleMoose posted:

Just in the very basic terms in that less GHG means less warming and less climate disruptions.

Yeah but you still haven't proposed one plan that will actually reduce GHG. Or even shown any evidence that it's possible.

As far as I know the only event that actually reduces human-based GHG emissions on the planet are global financial crises. Unfortunately that makes taking the carbon out of the atmosphere that much more difficult.

quote:

She continued: �What we are facing right now is something akin to a recession � a coral reef recession. The key now is for us to identify the best ways to manage through this recession while the global community comes together to make good on the Paris [climate] agreements. Doing this will lead coral reefs out of recession and give them and the half-billion people that depend on them a fighting chance.�

lol

NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Oct 18, 2016

# ? Oct 18, 2016 16:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: Post up your Phd. dissertation, coward

«‹›410 »